Curse

Winterclaw · Aug 04, 2009, 08:49 PM // 20:49

From gamespot.

For the most part I don't blame game companies from leaving the monthly fee vague... prices might fluctuate after you buy the game.

The only thing that seems a little overboard in this case is that you have to pay all back fees to reopen your account. If you can reuse your old IDs from the box to make the new account that'd be okay with me, but having to go out and buy the game again wouldn't be good.

Vilaptca · Aug 04, 2009, 10:39 PM // 22:39

It is absurd, but that's their payment plan, which she agreed to in the Terms of Service.

I don't know about other people, but when I see a game that says "additional online fees required," I go out and look up what exactly those fees are. You wouldn't buy a car that said "additional monthly fees required," without finding out what those fees are. I don't think ignorance holds up very well in court.

People are stupid. I hope she loses.

Pistachio · Aug 04, 2009, 11:54 PM // 23:54

It's so funny they delete characters after only 90 days "inactive." It's such a poor business practice. I have an Anarchy Online character I stopped playing in 2002 that still exists on FunCom's servers. I could go back anytime I wanted and pick him right back up.

subarucar · Aug 05, 2009, 07:39 AM // 07:39

Yay for American Society. Sue, sue, sue.

Abedeus · Aug 05, 2009, 08:33 AM // 08:33

Wait, what?

They require you to pay for months WHEN YOU DIDN'T PLAY? Now this is sick.

Aeon221 · Aug 05, 2009, 09:07 AM // 09:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vilaptca

It is absurd, but that's their payment plan, which she agreed to in the Terms of Service.

I don't know about other people, but when I see a game that says "additional online fees required," I go out and look up what exactly those fees are. You wouldn't buy a car that said "additional monthly fees required," without finding out what those fees are. I don't think ignorance holds up very well in court.

People are stupid. I hope she loses.

Well gee willikers, it's like you set out to prove your own point about people being stupid.

Firstly, the contract was not made viewable at the point of sale. Since it is nigh on impossible to return software to any vendor, unopened or otherwise, failure to present full terms at point of sale creates an undue burden on the purchaser. Rejection of the terms of service is rendered impossible in practical terms, due to the impossibility of return and payment redemption.

Secondly, the permanent account termination is a clear violation of the exhaustion rule. Without an actual violation of the terms of service, this is obviously destruction of private property over which the copyright holder has no domain. Hence the damages claim.

Thirdly, the requirement that players maintain continuous payment regardless of service usage is, if not illegal, highly irregular.

Finally, the EULA and ToS are both legally dubious documents. Plenty of precedents exist that discredit both as viable legal constructs.

In conclusion, your opinions are immaterial, ignorant and rather rude, especially considering how frightfully abusive Square Enix's system is. You'd think a gamer would support a legal challenge to such an obviously bad arrangement.

Black Metal · Aug 07, 2009, 04:04 AM // 04:04

well put, Aeon, and I totally agree. The legal challenges are very well-founded, and can certainly be argued. I hope she wins -- those terms, which are not fairly disclosed, are unfair and burdensome.

I for one am for legal rights for people who play online games. Just because the ToS stipulate that you owe them your first born does not mean that's legal.